Government of Jersey

Information about the publication of Ministerial Decisions

A formal published “Ministerial Decision” is required as a record of the decision of a Minister (or an Assistant Minister where they have delegated authority) as they exercise their responsibilities and powers.

Ministers are elected by the States Assembly and have legal responsibilities and powers as “corporation sole” under the States of Jersey Law 2005 by virtue of their office and in their areas of responsibility, including entering into agreements, and under any legislation conferring on them powers.

An accurate record of “Ministerial Decisions” is vital to effective governance, including:

demonstrating that good governance, and clear lines of accountability and authority, are in place around decisions-making – including the reasons and basis on which a decision is made, and the action required to implement a decision
providing a record of decisions and actions that will be available for examination by States Members, and Panels and Committees of the States Assembly; the public, organisations, and the media; and as a historical record and point of reference for the conduct of public affairs

Ministers are individually accountable to the States Assembly, including for the actions of the departments and agencies which discharge their responsibilities.

The Freedom of Information Law (Jersey) Law 2011 is used as a guide when determining what information is be published. While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.

A decision made 28 February 2011:

Decision Reference: MD-PE-2011-0024			Application Number: A/2010/1721 (If applicable)
Decision Summary Title :	20 1/2, Beresford Street, St. Helier,		Date of Decision Summary:		17/2/11
Decision Summary Author:	Gabrielle Way		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)		Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:		N/A
Written Report Title :	Officer Assessment Sheet for Adverts		Date of Written Report:		17/2/11
Written Report Author:	Gabrielle Way		Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)		Public
Subject: 20 ½, Beresford Street, St. Helier RETROSPECTIVE: Replace 2 No. projecting signs.
Decision(s): The Minister for Planning and Environment decided to REFUSE the application for new signs at 20 ½ Beresford Street, St Helier
Reason(s) for Decision: The proposed banner signs located at first floor level are considered inappropriate and contrary to Planning Advice Note No. 7. Furthermore their location, style and materials would harm the character and setting of the building which is on the Register of Buildings and Site of Architectural, Archaeological and Historical Importance, as a Potential Listed Building, contrary to Policy G13 of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002.
Resource Implications: None
Action required: Notify Agent, Applicant and all other interested parties
Signature:		PLeg / PT Initials		Position: Minister for Planning and Environment
Date Signed:				Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Advertisements: Refusal of application - 20 1/2 Beresford Street, St. Helier

ASS-ADVT – Officer Assessment Sheet for Adverts

Applications No:A/2010/1721	Valid Date: 24/11/2010	Deadline Date: 23/02/2011
Address:20 1/2, Beresford Street, St. Helier.
Description of Work:RETROSPECTIVE: Replace 2 No. projecting signs.
Zones/Listed:Building Of Local Interest Area of Archaeological Pot Built-Up Area Town Map Area Potential Town Conservation Ar Town Centre

Policy Considerations

(cross box)

Policy G18 (JIP,2002) – Signs and Adverts

Planning Advice Note No.7 – ‘Signs and Adverts’

Registered – Policy G11 & G13 (J1P,2002)
Listed Building
Potential Listed Building	yes
Not Registered

Relevant Planning History

No history found for the current banners or the photographed original projecting sign located between the two first floor windows ‘Roxy Hair Salon’.

How many NEW or REPLACEMENT

Replacement projecting vinyl

Summarised Assessment
Are the following acceptable?	YES	NO	Further Comments
Advert Location		No
Type		No
Size of Sign		No	1.5m by 0.5m
Materials and Colours	Ok		vinyl
Illumination	Ok		None
Brightness			n/a
Height above ground level (m)		No
Visual Impact		No
Size of Lettering	ok

Consultations
CCTV/Police			No objection 17th Feb 2011 (see email)
Highways			none
HBO			Not acceptable in terms of their style/ materials and position above ground floor. Recommend that the sign is displayed in the door way of the ground floor entrance door. 2/2/11

Statutory advertising period expired?	JEP Date Site Notice Cert date Photo Rec/OK?	30th nov 2010	Comments
		30th nov 2010
		ok
Summary of Representations	None
Responses from applicants/ amendments Re-advertised?	None

Officer Summary

No previous history has been found for two banners existing at first floor, which this application is proposed to replace. A photo has been provided showing an original projecting sign, this is evidence of what was signs have been fixed to the building in the past however an application was not submitted for this sign. It was therefore unauthorised. Signs at first floor level on this building have not been approved since the current Island Plan 2002.

The location of these two banner signs at first floor level is considered to be contrary to Planning Advice Note No 7 which states there will be a general presumption against an advert located at or above first floor level, with the exception of appropriate flag poles or attractive adverts painted onto the building.

The site is also identified as a Potential Listed Building, the Historic Environment Section have objected to the proposal in terms of the style and material proposed and their position above ground floor level, indicating that this is an elegant façade with elaborate architecture. It is preferable for commercial premises to advertise in the ground floor doorway. This hair salon, currently has a sign in their door way.

Furthermore, No 23 Beresford Street (nearly opposite this property, and also a Potential Listed Building) was refused a pvc banner 0.8m by 2.2m in July 2009. This was refused at R for R on 24th November 2009.

The two proposed banners located at first floor level are not considered to be sensitively located on this Potential Listed Building and are contrary to guidance set out in Planning Advice Note No.7. Furthermore the style and material of these banners are considered to cause harm to the architectural character of the property, contrary to Policy G13, of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002.

Recommend: Enforcement to send a letter to the owner for the removal of these signs, given that this application is recommended for refusal – threatening enforcement action if they are not removed within a reasonable time scale.

Recommend: REFUSAL

(Delete approval cell) hidden text

Reasons (See DCR)

Insufficient Information
Detrimental to Character of the property	x
Contrary to Policy	x
Other

The proposed banner signs located at first floor level are considered inappropriate and contrary to Planning Advice Note No. 7. Furthermore their location, style and materials would harm the character and setting of the building which is on the Register of Buildings and Site of Architectural, Archaeological and Historical Importance, as a Potential Listed Building, contrary to Policy G13 of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002.

Enforcement have been requested to send a letter to the owner, to remove the signs, otherwise enforcement action may pursue.

Site Visited	9th February 2011
Final Drawings (Log)	A: Location Plan B: Existing Sign C: Proposed Sign
Planning Officer	Gabrielle Way
Recommendation Date

Note: This sheet should be positioned under the DCR within the file. One set of the final drawings should be paper – clipped together in the wallet.